A somber, stony-faced Detective Mark Fuhrman asserted his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination three times Wednesday, refusing to answer questions posed by defense lawyers who charge that he framed O.J. Simpson. "Was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful?" defense attorney Gerald F. Uelmen asked in a quick, pointed confrontation with Fuhrman, who has told jurors he found a bloody glove at Simpson's estate.

Listen to Gerald Uelmen's specious arguments (Commentary, Oct. 10): 1) "What we overlook is that the sequestered jurors saw a different trial than the television viewers." 2) " . . . The jury didn't even share . . . the public exposure of the racist rantings of Detective Mark Fuhrman." 3) " . . . The verdict of public opinion [is not] sanctified by an oath." He makes these arguments knowing that lawyers involved in the O.J. Simpson trial are under investigation by the State Bar of California for their behavior; he knows that his client was not under oath when he was coaxed by a member of the bar to proclaim his innocence; he knows that his team blemished several detectives, as having smeared blood on his client's floors, his car, along his driveway and planted a bloody glove.

Re O.J. Simpson case: My sister was murdered last year. Her case, in the midst of so many other unresolved homicides in Los Angeles, was shuffled between various detectives with limited time and experience to offer. It wasn't until my sister's case was given to Detective Mark Fuhrman that I saw any real progress or interest taken. Not only did he express sincere empathy toward me and my family over the loss, but he's put forth the groundwork and effort needed to conduct a more solid investigation.

No part of the criminal justice Establishment took a more punishing beating during O.J. Simpson's dou ble murder trial than the Los Angeles Police Department, whose officers and technicians were charged at various times with bigotry, deceit, ignorance and garden-variety incompetence. Outwardly, however, the department displays few scars. With its chrome equipment, well-paid staffers in white lab coats and double-locked doors, the LAPD's crime lab certainly doesn't look like a "cesspool of contamination."

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is defense attorney Jill Lansing, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today's topic: Bailey vs. Fuhrman, Round Two. PETER ARENELLA On the prosecution: "While Detective Mark Fuhrman testified that he found his coaching session with prosecutors to be unproductive, his performance on the stand so far suggests otherwise.

Listen to Gerald Uelmen's specious arguments (Commentary, Oct. 10): 1) "What we overlook is that the sequestered jurors saw a different trial than the television viewers." 2) " . . . The jury didn't even share . . . the public exposure of the racist rantings of Detective Mark Fuhrman." 3) " . . . The verdict of public opinion [is not] sanctified by an oath." He makes these arguments knowing that lawyers involved in the O.J. Simpson trial are under investigation by the State Bar of California for their behavior; he knows that his client was not under oath when he was coaxed by a member of the bar to proclaim his innocence; he knows that his team blemished several detectives, as having smeared blood on his client's floors, his car, along his driveway and planted a bloody glove.

Detective Mark Fuhrman, as a member of the LAPD, obviously was not always concerned with the constitutional rights of all citizens. But when he needed to, Fuhrman did not hesitate to invoke his constitutional rights by asserting his 5th Amendment privilege (Sept. 7). How ironic. JON WHITE Duarte If Fuhrman can exercise his 5th Amendment rights and Johnnie Cochran states this is proof that he planted evidence, then do we assume that O.J. Simpson exercising his right not to testify means he is guilty of both murders?

This is a story about one column and two letters offering very different perspectives on life in Los Angeles. It is, alas, yet another story about race, O.J. Simpson and the LAPD. Yes, these topics can be tiresome. But bear with me. With the Simpson trial drawing to a close--the first trial, that is--these subjects will be with us for some time to come. I'm not an O.J. junkie.

Jurors in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson returned to work for the first time in a week Tuesday and were immediately confronted with electrifying evidence that Detective Mark Fuhrman disparaged interracial couples, bragged about making up charges and repeatedly used a vicious racial epithet. One witness, Kathleen Bell, fought back tears while telling the jury that Fuhrman told her during their first meeting that African Americans should be "gathered together and burned."

No part of the criminal justice Establishment took a more punishing beating during O.J. Simpson's dou ble murder trial than the Los Angeles Police Department, whose officers and technicians were charged at various times with bigotry, deceit, ignorance and garden-variety incompetence. Outwardly, however, the department displays few scars. With its chrome equipment, well-paid staffers in white lab coats and double-locked doors, the LAPD's crime lab certainly doesn't look like a "cesspool of contamination."

This is a story about one column and two letters offering very different perspectives on life in Los Angeles. It is, alas, yet another story about race, O.J. Simpson and the LAPD. Yes, these topics can be tiresome. But bear with me. With the Simpson trial drawing to a close--the first trial, that is--these subjects will be with us for some time to come. I'm not an O.J. junkie.

Detective Mark Fuhrman, as a member of the LAPD, obviously was not always concerned with the constitutional rights of all citizens. But when he needed to, Fuhrman did not hesitate to invoke his constitutional rights by asserting his 5th Amendment privilege (Sept. 7). How ironic. JON WHITE Duarte If Fuhrman can exercise his 5th Amendment rights and Johnnie Cochran states this is proof that he planted evidence, then do we assume that O.J. Simpson exercising his right not to testify means he is guilty of both murders?

A somber, stony-faced Detective Mark Fuhrman asserted his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination three times Wednesday, refusing to answer questions posed by defense lawyers who charge that he framed O.J. Simpson. "Was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful?" asked defense attorney Gerald F. Uelmen. "Have you ever falsified a police report?" And most strikingly, "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?"

Jurors in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson returned to work for the first time in a week Tuesday and were immediately confronted with electrifying evidence that Detective Mark Fuhrman disparaged interracial couples, bragged about making up charges and repeatedly used a vicious racial epithet. One witness, Kathleen Bell, fought back tears while telling the jury that Fuhrman told her during their first meeting that African Americans should be "gathered together and burned."

Three North Carolina appellate judges are expected to render a decision as early as today that could affect the outcome of the O.J. Simpson murder trial--and even the credibility of the ultimate verdict. At issue is Simpson's appeal of the ruling of a Winston-Salem trial judge who refused to order North Carolina screenwriting professor Laura Hart McKinny to testify in Los Angeles and produce audiotapes of conversations in which Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman used the word "nigger."

Much has been made in the press that the Simpson defense has been able to show that Detective Mark Fuhrman was alone for a period at the crime scene and may have had an opportunity to pick up the glove. I have heard no mention that a number of other officers had already viewed the scene and would have had numerous opportunities to notice two gloves. But the biggest oversight in the attendant commentary is that at the time Fuhrman was supposedly left alone, he had already been dismissed from the case and had been standing around waiting to be relieved.

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is defense attorney Jill Lansing, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today's topic: Bailey vs. Fuhrman, Round Two. PETER ARENELLA On the prosecution: "While Detective Mark Fuhrman testified that he found his coaching session with prosecutors to be unproductive, his performance on the stand so far suggests otherwise.